1 2025:CGHC:21417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.559 of 2019 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Through O- I- C Mr. D.K. Bharti Aged 43 Years S/o K.R. Bharti, Executive Engineer, Bhilai City (East ), CSPDCL, Bhilai Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Complainant versus 1. Sunil Kumar Sao S/o Late Birji Sao Aged About 51 Years Camp -1, Bhilai Police Station Chaavni, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ...Respondent/accused 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, Chhattisgarh., ….Prosecution For Appellant : Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava on behalf of Shri PR Patankar, Advocates. For Respondent No.2/State : Shri HAPS Bhatia, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 08.05.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.04.2018 passed by the Special Judge (under Electricity Act, 2003), Durg in Special Criminal Case Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.05.09 17:38:09 +0530 2 No.812/2010 whereby, accused/Respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act of 2003’). 2. The facts giving rise to the instant Appeal as per the prosecution are that accused/Respondent No.1 has taken an electric connection bearing No.9003900774 for ice factory situated at Road No.18, Camp-1, Bhiali, PS Chaavni, District Durg. That on 11.05.2010, Vinod Kumar Pandit (PW-1), the then Junior Engineer and PK Verma (PW-2) Line Supervisor visited the premises of accused/Respondent No.1 for carrying out a routine inspection and during the said inspection, it was found that accused/Respondent No.1 has tampered the electricity meter, therefore, spot inspection report (Ex.P-1) and Panchnama in Form No.4 (Ex.P-2) were prepared. The seized meter was examined in the lab (Ex.P-3) and the said fact was affirmed in the lab report also and on the basis of information given by Vinod Kumar Pandit (PW-1), FIR dated 24.07.2010 was registered at PS Chhaavni vide crime No.668/2010, which has not been exhibited. Assessment of payment of Rs.2,03,176/- was issued by the Assistant Engineer, CSPDCL(T), Bhilai which has also not been exhibited. 3. Statement of the witnesses was recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Vinod Kumar (PW-1), PK Verma (PW-2), Dev Kumar Deshmukh (PW-3) and SK Mishra (PW-4). Accused/ Respondent No.1 has abjured his guilt and his statement was recorded 3 under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein, he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the said offence. 4. The trial Court has, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted accused/Respondent No.1 of the charge as mentioned above. Hence, this Appeal has been filed. 5. Shri Sharma submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and evidence of the case in its proper perspective as the departmental witnesses who are not the police officers, have categorically deposed that accused/Respondent No.1 has tampered the electricity meter, therefore, offence under Section 135 of the Act of 2003 was made out. 6. Contrastingly, Ms. Shrivastava submits that no procedure has been followed and no independent witnesses were present at the time of inspection and even before proceeding for inspection, no prior information was provided by Vinod Kumar Pandit (PW-1) to his higher officials and this fact has been admitted by him also. She further submits that even no written order has been filed or proved that Vinod Kumar Pandit (PW-1) or his team was authorized for inspection. She lastly submits that the inspection was carried out in an illegal manner and as such, the trial Court has rightly acquitted accused/Respondent No.1. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with utmost circumspection. 4 8. Admittedly, in the instant case, on the basis of information provided by Vinod Kumar Pandit (PW-1), the then Junior Engineer, FIR was registered but the same has not been exhibited or proved by the prosecution. Further, Vinod Kumar Pandit (PW-1) categorically admitted this fact that before proceeding for inspection, he has not given any prior information to his higher officials. 9. Part-III of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules of 2006’) which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under clause (o) of sub-section (2) of Section 180 r/w clause (k) of sub-section (2) of Section 180 and sections 126, 127, 135, 151 and 152 of the Act of 2003 deal with the procedure regarding entry, search and seizure. It is evident that when the inspecting team was said to have inspected the premises of accused/Respondent No.1, the inspecting squad has not given intimation as is required under Form-2 of the Rules of 2006. Rules 5(ii) & (iii) of the said Rules mandate that before inspection, the reasons for doing so shall have to be recorded in Form 3 by the officer not below the rank of Assistant Engineer of Distribution Licensee or Assistant Electrical Inspector of the Chief Electrical Inpsectorate and a Panchnama shall also be made in Form 4. 10. Admittedly, in the instant case, the said procedure has not been followed. Further, the provisional assessment of the loss and damages caused to the Electricity Board as assessed by the enquiry officer has also neither been proved nor furnished nor provided to accused/Respondent No.1. Further, there was no independent witness to the prosecution and there is a clear non-compliance of the provisions 5 of the Rules of 2006. The entire proceedings allegedly initiated by the officers of the Electricity Board give rise to a great element of doubt. It is always settled position of law that whenever a doubt is created on the prosecution story or on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the benefit of doubt is always to be given to the accused person. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid infirmities, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused/Respondent No.1 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act of 2003. 12. For the foregoing, the view taken by the trial Court appears to be a plausible one which does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya